Who’s Made the Compromise?
Virgil R. Hall II (Randy)

Anthony Gregory offers “no compromise” to “hawkish” libertarians to no longer call themselves “libertarian”. This in itself is his “compromise” which is no compromise at all in his article “A Compromise for the Libertarian Hawks” at http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory93.html

Anthony insists there is a “clash” over the word “libertarian”, indeed the libertarian philosophy is one of allowing individuals to label themselves as they see fit. Nixon, Goldwater, Clinton and Hitler could conceivably consider themselves “libertarian” but it is how others define their political philosophy historically perceive them, which in realty record the essence of their philosophies. Republican, Libertarian, Democrat or hard core socialist respectively.

 So who can claim ”libertarian” exclusively without perspective? What happened to the word “liberal” in American politics? Is “libertarian” in danger of losing it’s import to anarchists as “liberal” has become demeaned by conservative/socialist demagoguery? 

 "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."  Barry Goldwater http://www.lp.org/lpn/9807-Goldwater.html

 According to David Nolan Barry Goldwater was a huge part of the inspiration, which founded the Libertarian party.  Rather than min-anarchist/anarchist slogans the Libertarian party used to offer a bumper sticker, which said; “ Revive Don’t Revise the U.S. Constitution!”  Now it seems if you are in support of the Constitution you are a “statist”, “pro-government” lackey or really an undercover agent for the Republican/Democratic parties.

 “Libertarian” is not anti-government as “liberal” is not fanatical socialism or “conservative” representing jack-booted thugs throwing grandma into the streets and snatching food out of the mouths of children. Demagoguery is a haven for fools and agenda driven political passion, well intentioned or not.

 War is HELL; it is NOT something any libertarian would consider lightly. One of government’s most basic roles is defending its citizens, sometimes with pre-emptive action. Anytime there is a decision for pre-emptive action there will be reasonable libertarians who will disagree, being either for or against does not define who is or who is not “libertarian”.

 If there is a compromise it’s not the “libertarian”, it is the min-anarchist or the anarchist who have migrated to the Libertarian party out of frustration because humanity seeks order rather than chaos. In the Libertarian Party their voices are heard and many points of social and political conscience will often bear kernels of basic truths, but when confronted with the political and the daily reality of survival they fall short when necessity requires concessions for social change.

 Individuals may call themselves carrots, potatoes or within the larger context vegetables but in the end they are not what they say but what they do. We would all do well to consider the demagogic rhetoric being tossed about with passion and little substance. Libertarians usually offer reason and logic rather than half-baked and ill-considered conspiracies to back them up.

 Opinions may differ, sources may be biased and sincerity may be heartfelt and real. There are arguments on both sides of the pre-emptive ability of government to wage war in the defense of America, the degree of which could be from pure anarchist to conservative libertarian. So who is to compromise? The anarchist or the libertarian? If you maintain an anti-government position should you reconsider calling yourself “libertarian”?

 In nature both doves and hawks co-exist, they may not play well together but they are both part of life’s animation.